Sukant Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 Others

Held

The Court held that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy. Based on the submission by the counsel for respondent no. 5, the Court observed that the petitioner could approach the relevant authority, such as the Lokpal, to have their grievance looked into. Consequently, the Court did not delve into the merits of the allegations of irregularities or illegality in the payments and transactions. The Court's decision was primarily based on the availability of an alternative statutory or administrative mechanism for resolving the petitioner's concerns. The Court directed that if the petitioner approaches the relevant authority, their grievance should be considered thereafter. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations, without a decision on the substantive issues raised by the petitioner regarding the investigation.

Facts

This Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus. The petitioner requested the court to direct the state respondents to initiate an independent investigation or forensic audit into certain payments and transactions. This investigation was to include verification of invoices, purchase orders, dealer agreements, commission calculations, bank records, GST records, and books of accounts. The objective was to take appropriate action if any irregularity or illegality was found. During the proceedings, the counsel for respondent no. 5 suggested that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy by approaching the Lokpal or another appropriate authority to address the alleged errors by respondents no. 2 and 3.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy available, thereby precluding the High Court from exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this Public Interest Litigation? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to compel an investigation into alleged irregularities. The specific arguments made by the petitioner's counsel, Alok Krishan Tripathi and Arpit Shukla, are not explicitly detailed in the judgment regarding the alternative remedy. However, the filing of the PIL itself suggests a belief that the available remedies were either inadequate or that the matter warranted direct High Court intervention. Revenue/State's Argument: Sri Sushant Chandra, learned counsel for respondent no. 5, argued that the petitioner possesses an efficacious alternative remedy by approaching the Lokpal or another competent authority. This argument implies that the High Court should not entertain the writ petition due to the existence of such an alternative path for grievance redressal.